Benefit of your hindsight with Global Tracker Funds

mears1

ChilliBob said:

I echo the iweb transfers comments.

Fidelity world p and HSBC are different trackers, ones all of world one just developed, one MSCI methodology, one FTSE. I do hold both actually as it spreads the risk of just having something with one manager (I'm not suggesting either will go bankrupt or anything, just if there was some reason you couldn't sell for a certain period or something).

Lots of trackers wouldn't be a good idea though, if you need to sell to realise a gain (hopefully!) you'd have more transaction costs if you needed to sell more funds. 

As regards lump sum vs drip, I'd have been waaaaay better off if I had just lumpsummed everything in about 12 months ago. However, I was getting used to everything. Things are even more Volatile now. Whilst lump sum has been proven to be the best I think it's difficult mentally, especially if you're a new investor. 

Thanks for sharing your experience, makes this experience less isolating. Maybe, I should just stick to 2 global trackers instead of 4.

It's just that I do not know which! I am not sure if the difference between the 2 is to include China and the emerging markets or not? Who knows? And google Finance does not display the MSCI index, so a bit of a mystery!

NannaH

Fidelity doesn’t hold emerging markets, HSBC does.

ChilliBob

Look on the banker on wheels website, whilst this talks a lot about ETFS most of the article is in explaining the difference between msci and ftse, and their various indexes. Very useful article:

https://www.bankeronwheels.com/best-international-etfs/

ChilliBob

Ultimately though, as the article says, the performance of these different global trackers won't be markedly different in the long run though. Which is why for OEICs I chose the ones your thinking of - the fees are lower. I even considered doing a US, Europe and Asia passive funds due to lower OCF but decided it wasn't worth it probably 

GeoffTF

ChilliBob said:

Fidelity world p and HSBC are different trackers, ones all of world one just developed, one MSCI methodology, one FTSE. I do hold both actually as it spreads the risk of just having something with one manager (I'm not suggesting either will go bankrupt or anything, just if there was some reason you couldn't sell for a certain period or something).

That may not do any good if both funds use the same custodian. I read somewhere that Vanguard and BlackRock use different custodians. Nonetheless, this is like not leaving home for fear of being run over. Your broker going bust is a bigger risk, but the risk of losing money as a result is still very very small for the big execution only brokers. A much bigger risk is that the markets crash badly and do not recover before you need the money.

Thrugelmir

ChilliBob said:

Ultimately though, as the article says, the performance of these different global trackers won't be markedly different in the long run though. 

That depends on whether the major developed markets continue to be dominated by a select group of companies. 

valiant24

ChilliBob said:

As regards lump sum vs drip, I'd have been waaaaay better off if I had just lumpsummed everything in about 12 months ago. However, I was getting used to everything. Things are even more Volatile now. Whilst lump sum has been proven to be the best I think it's difficult mentally, especially if you're a new investor. 

I absolutely echo this.  I had a lump sum about a year ago and just tipped it into VWRP and with hindsight it's been a good decision.

Now I have another one.  I am really nervous about putting the whole lot in now.   It "feels" different now.   But then ... it always does! ;-)